Fox News had its worst ratings since 2001 in January, according to the latest figures.

The network had a 12-year low in the coveted 25-54 demographic in primetime and fell to its lowest total day ratings since 2008, a press release from rival cable channel MSNBC stated on Tuesday.

And January marked the worst month ever for Fox’s “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren” among the 25-54 demo, as well as the channel’s lowest total viewership in the 10 p.m. hour since July 2008.

At note at MSNBC, the cable network saw its ratings go up 11 percent in the 25-54 demo compared to January 2012. And “The Rachel Maddow Show” topped CNN’s “Piers Morgan Tonight” this month, and also ranked number one among the 18-34 demo.

This could also explain some recent moves by Fox News maven Roger Ailes. He has apparently exiled Dick Morris, arguably the worst political pundit since the time of Moses. And he made former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin a lower-figure contract renewal she could and did refuse after a year when various reports made it clear he was not pleased with Palin for ignoring some advice he gave her and also didn’t feel she had the highest mental wattage politically *(he later denied the story but that sounded like a typical backtrack).

FOOTNOTE: I monitor all the cable networks and have trouble watching Maddow. She repeats a concept four or five times. A concept she will repeat four or five times. Four or five times she’ll repeat a concept. Maddow four or five times repeat will she concept. (I suspect she could cover more topics on the air if she simply repeated an idea once, or twice, or maybe only three times..) As far as her interviews, show structure — that isn’t my complaint. But it’s the repeating. The repeating it is…(ETC)

Joe, bingo on Maddow. I used to watch her sometimes but I am intelligent enough to get the point on the second try. Less pedantic, but almost as annoying are AC of CNN and BO of Fox when it comes to repetitiveness. BTW, I still love Greta.
P.S., I love Fareed Zakaria although that is a “serious” show.
Does it cost so much less to have less puerile shows, as mentioned above, from 8-11PM?

zusa1

“FOOTNOTE: I monitor all the cable networks and have trouble watching Maddow. She repeats a concept four or five times. A concept she will repeat four or five times. Four or five times she’ll repeat a concept. Maddow four or five times repeat will she concept. (I suspect she could cover more topics on the air if she simply repeated an idea once, or twice, or maybe only three times..) As far as her interviews, show structure — that isn’t my complaint. But it’s the repeating. The repeating it is…(ETC)”

You forgot to include the pregnant pauses in between with the “look how clever I am” look on her face.

zephyr

I’m glad I so rarely watch TV. I read most of my news and by doing so use my time more efficiently.

slamfu

This is great news. It is a barometer of the intelligence of the people. Now if only we can shrink the market for reality TV.

merkin

I don’t watch either network. Why would I? I can speed read and can digest written information considerably faster than I can listen to it doled out on the television or the radio punctuated by inane advertisements.

Read a transcript of a news report or commentary, they barely make sense as the written word. Yet they must sound convincing to a large number of people when spoken or they wouldn’t be so popular.

The_Ohioan

I can understand not watching TV for the most part, but you really don’t get the full effect of a McCain or a Graham bullying without seeing it. True it doesn’t have to be live, but watching a segment, like reading an article, leaves one without the complete context of what has happened. Unless you watch the whole thing on a CSPAN rerun or something like it.

You really miss the total effect of FOX news unless you watch an entire day of it, also.

I didn’t watch the whole hearing and don’t know the context, so probably can’t give you a satisfactory answer. If you watched it, I’d be interested in your interpretation.

Which would probably be different from mine since we can’t even agree on the fact that the militiamen told others they were acting partially because of the video and the protests it had caused in Egypt and partially because some of them had contacts with al Qaida (which was promoting action on 9/11 while using the video as one more reason for those actions).